Talk:List of parrots
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of parrots is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
Is it just me or is there like.... only one species of cockatoo on this page? And what the heck is the point of having all those birds on here if you can't even tell me anything about them. They should be on a different list. An alphebetical list for birds you do have links to and another for parrots that you don't. I don't really know how to write the whole Article on these birds but i know quite a bit about them. We need more cockatoos on here folks. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.186.211 (talk • contribs)
They're all listed now, though they don't have articles yet. Brucemoko 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to put up at least a token page for each species lacking one. In the interest of doing it quickly, I'm using just Juniper & Parr. At my current rate (under one bird per day), this will take the rest of the year. Note: I don't have public domain pictures unless some book I have has declared them fair game, which I doubt (the only good books I have are Juniper&Parr, Forshaw (old & new), & Alderton). Brucemoko 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've split the list into sections by initial letter, and put a compact TOC at the top. I think it helps - I'd like other opinions. Should there be sections for letters with no entries? (currently Q,X & Z, but I know Q Q will eventually get one).Brucemoko 18:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confusion with format and repetitions in table
I have found the table for the first time today, and I am a bit confused by it. If the aims of the table were made clearer then editors would be able to work towards these aims. The binomial names are duplicated frequently, probably intentionally, where there are more than one common name for a parrot. I am not sure what the third column is for, if there are "synonyms", why do they not present in the first column of common names? I think that the presence of intentional repetitions should be clearly explained on the page. Snowman 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I just made the table sortable, the data is only what was already there; it's just that the table makes the repetition more obvious. I've no idea of the rationale to the synonyms. Presumably the synonyms could be absorbed into column 1, and the third column lost or retitled for comments latter would be easier. Jimfbleak 05:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
